Don’t we all?
Some do so from afar, some engage before they dismiss. Which are you?
I’m not religious. Nor am I objectivist. Where does that leave your conclusions?
Speaking of Platonic forms is how we relay an idea (a concept) to others.
I too find the whole “observer makes a difference” explanation insufficient. But then I know little about quantum physics.
I’m sorry, that was the only sense I could make of what you said - though it did seem wrong. What do you mean “allowed to do”? I’m allowed to do anything…
Perhaps reworded; “Fear seems to be what drives the solipsist, the fear that there is a good solid reason why they and many others are not allowed by other people to do certain things.”
The point being that perhaps the solipsist chooses that philosophy in hopes of escaping from what he fears - the authority of others over him.
See, now you’re sounding like you don’t “have better understandings to rely on”.
The essence of something like authority is in the experience of a feeling: the feeling of being in power, or the feeling of being powerless. Take away the dominant or submissive “other” and it’s still possible for authority to be experienced.
The thing about Solipsism, which I see others failing to grasp all the time, is that there really is no “other-in-itself”. It’s not like you’re simply denying a whole chunk of existence (that’s “really” there, you just don’t want to admit it/don’t like it) - it’s no wonder people have this seemingly intuitive aversion to it when they can’t rid themselves of certain assumptions. Common ones include “if you don’t appear to be in as immediate control of part of your life, it comes from some non-you origin”, which is of course contradicted by things like involuntary behaviours (which happen WAY more than people seem to be aware of) and other such experiences that ARE attributed to the self… - Solipsism’s rejection is invariably down to unquestioned assumptions.
Authority is an example of what you would call “affect”, and what I would call “experience”. All other people, even “yourself” and your body etc. are experiences that Solipsism does absolutely nothing to remove, or help you escape from. They’re still there, only mentally framed differently. I still fear just as much/as little as I did before I realised just how streamlined and consistent Solipsism really was. Only everything just fits together so much more nicely now.
I know you do and as I said, this is based on assumptions that both you and many others cannot get past - a primary cause of your intuitive rejection.
I don’t believe any ontology to be totally consistent, except from my own “Experientialism”. Solipsism’s only inconsistency comes from the accounts of “others”. But that weighed against the complete lack of directly experiential proof of such accounts, I am quite happy to side with Solipsism.
If you wish to expose any further assumptions of yours, to try and help me “discover” further inconsistency in Solipsism, then I am happy to address them.
As far as “Experientialism” goes though, Solipsism is a “take it or leave it” option, based on non-essential values that emerge from pre-meaningful/pre-valued, unabstracted experience.
I’m afraid that you would have to point out such “assumptions”. I would defend that RM:AO has none at all.
I’m really not interested in an argument over Solipsism, especially if you don’t even consider it your own philosophy. You have pointed out that “Experientialism” is your philosophy (“EO”) and is the only one that is totally logical. I would rather investigate that one.
My first question would be concerning how any experience ever takes place. Can you describe what might be called “the first essential experience”, as in the most fundamental (not necessarily the first in a time sequence)?
James, if we accept these definitions of two different realms, then it means that these realms do not exist for each other as there is no interaction between. And also, the conceptual realm has nothing to do with us. So, what is the need of even visualize and define it?
Yes, i can understand that as you said about it in JSSRM that, potential is not an physical entity but merely a possibility of happening any event at a particular point. That event may happen or even may not, or even may happen in any different way.
The only certainty is that something would happen at that point for sure as it cannot be remain the same forever. That is potential or possibility of change, and this would never change, though, events would come and go.
Having said that, a question arises here. As you defined, this PTA is merely a possible situation or a concept, not a physical entity, thus, this belongs to the conceptual realm, so it should not have any bearing or interaction with affectance, because affectance belongs to realm of change.
But, this also means that there cannot be any affectance, if there is no PTA.
But, the issue is if PTA is essential for affectance, so how can you say that these two realms do not interact and affect each other?
And secondly, it confirms that PTA (quality) must predate the actualization of Affectance (quantity).
Agreed.
I think that the issue is that one cannot completely fill or pack the universe with any particular physical size or shape. So, that entails metaphysics, the calculus of physics. One has no option but to hypothesize very small, but never ending series of infinitely infinitesimal metaphysical points to fill the universe completely, on which PTA can enforce itself.
As we would proceed further, PTA actualizes itself and affectance is manifested. In other words, the concept became a reality.
You also did it with Jack. You might have thought of any particular set of program how those small points of space would influence each other. And, your thought (conceptual realm) affected Jack (changing realm).
So, once again, how can you say that these two realms do not affect each other?
I agree with this, because this is a reality.
But, it still begs a question- Why? Why a universe must be in changing state always? Why could it not remained the same unchanged forever? What was the necessity, reason or cause behind that eternal change?
I think that, by reasoning, the only answer is that because, it is still changing continuously, thus, it would have been the same forever.
I think that i can understand it.
There was a simple or a single dimensional change initially. But, the force behind the first cause or wave of change does not die after the causing the first affect, but continues to change even after the first stage. In the meanwhile, the second wave of the change hits what has been more or less change has been caused by the first wave of change, and adds to it. And this continues, because, new waves of change are still coming without any break, and even previous waves are not dying.
It is not a simple change in the situation, but, even there is also a change in the rate of changing.
But, what do you mean by Logic itself forbids it?
Are you referring to the congestion of affectance that causes delay in change and creates particle later?
I am aware of your definition of God.
I can understand what you are saying.
But, if distance is caused by the immediacy of affect, then does it not mean that affect predates space and time?
But, if that is so, then in which place this PTA and those tiny points in the space would exist?
I agree that A = A can be both logic and observation too. Subjectivism is caused because the information has to travel through via ignorance to mind, thus becomes blurred.
James, one has to take something for granted initially, whether it is an entity or a logic. At the very basic level, even logic is also an entity. It is what it is, nothing more and nothing less.
What is logic? A = A or merely a principle? A quantity or a quality? Or both?
When to take the FIrst cause as a God, then you have to assume both PTA and those small metaphysical points in the space, in the first place, otherwise, how would your first cause work? And, where? And, on which?
You have derived this First cause by running backwards from the present state of the universe. But, at last, you have to leave out either space or affectance to single out the one basic rule. So, which one you prefer, PTA or those points on which PTA can cause affectance?
You have to take a space made of those small metaphysical infinite points as granted prior to PTA. It cannot be other way around. Otherwise, it would defy the logic of order.
I am not sure what Logic stands for here. Though, i agree that there must be some explanation of the existence. But, i am not sure whether it was required or not, and for what purpose!
James, it is not a new idea by any means. It very concept was in the mind of mankind since long, really long. Though in a slight different way, and, the difference is that they were neither able to see it physically nor calculate it mathematically, thus, they adopted a different metaphysical route to see and confirm things. That is what the true essence of religions are.
I think that this has been addressed already, so let us leave it for a while, without going in further detail.
I agree with that all.
Agreed. Affect on affect. The next wave of affect hitting whatever caused by that all previous ones, though, they (previous)are still alive.
Agreed again. The PTA depends and varies on the location of those points, and that is precisely what their definition is.
Still no issue as i can understand all this and also agree with it.
In other words, if that change would be spontaneous, then there would be no time/space as that limit or restriction manifests both of these.
Having said that, there is still an unanswered question left that, if there is no time ans space at this moment, then where all this would happen and how the very first affect would take place without time. Or, the time would come into existence simultaneously with first affect? But, what about the space?
Understandable and still no issue.
This series of delay would ultimately lead to such situation where it would become impossible for the PTA of point A to proceed further. And, that would be our limit of the maximum speed of the affect or information.
Now, that is problematic as we have been talking about the resistance since long.
Are you here talking about merely the interaction between two very adjacent points only?
James, though I am not much interested in philosophical definitions, but I do not see any reason how mere Logic can revel actual truth all the time.
And, why a Logic cannot be subjective too as it is also nothing but an ontology or cogitation of subjective mind?
Can you explain a blind man by birth how blue color looks, merely by logic, explanation or reasoning? I do not think so.
There are some phenomena those entail experience in person. Borrowed knowledge does not work in all cases. Sometimes, one has to earn it.
In that case, how a newly born child would able to weep just after coming out from mother’s womb? How he does come to know that it is time to weep? And, where he learned weeping? From your definition, he should not have any mind at all, because he has not memory at that moment.
Furthermore, there are examples where the total memory is lost by accidents, but those persons does not lose their mental abilits and gain new memory.
James, memory does not cover the whole anatomy of the mind, but merely a part of it.
That is true. But there is still a need for the conceptual realm and that is for sake of the mind trying to discover its situation. It is much like a game wherein a person says, “IF my opponent does A then I can do X, but IF my opponent does B, then I must be able to do Y.”
The options thought about were A and B, but if either one actually exists, the other doesn’t. But didn’t both have to be considered? Why consider the one that didn’t exist? The mind quite often, always in fact, must consider things that don’t exist and sometimes are actually impossible, as we are about to see. So when I say that the “conceptual realm of the non-changing ‘exists’”, I am actually referring to something that is only an imaginary existence for sake of mental constructs, but a necessary one.
Well, don’t confuse “possibility” with “potential”. They are related, but they are not the same thing. A possibility means that as far as you know, event A might happen instead of event B. As far as you know, there is a potential for either. But in reality, only one can actually occur and thus in reality there was only the potential for that one. Possibilities are only about what your mind knows, not about actual reality.
PtA doesn’t “interact”. PtA is merely a measure of the situation of the affectance. PtA is descriptive of the situation, not a cause of it. It is like saying that the tide is high. The tide being high is not what caused the water to rise nor lower. But if the tide is high, the situation is that the water is high, then “because of the high tide”, the water will be lowering later. The high tide represents a potential for the lowering of the water, but the tide is merely stating the situation of high water. And the high water isn’t causing the water to lower. Gravity is doing that. The high water merely offered the potential for it to lower. So don’t let the language confuse the ontological causation issues.
Well that is true. The situation of the potentials must exist or the actualization, the affectance, would not occur. As in the last analogy, if the water was not high, it could not later lower. For the water to go low, it has to be high. It had to have the “potential to become lower” before it could ever begin to lower.
Now with that question, we begin the deep journey into truly new territory wherein I suspect that you will discover something rather interesting.
Why must there be change? Why not a steady state of absolute stillness? The short answer is that stillness is logically impossible, even if there never had been any prior motion.
For there to be no motion at all, all potentials (all situations) must cancel each other out so as to be perfectly balanced. That means that the situation must be that there is no ability for anything to affect anything or make change - absolute infinitely perfect balance of forces - no changing at all.
Believe or not, something as simple as a straight line is logically impossible. And get this, I don’t mean that it is impossible for the physical universe. I mean it is impossible even for the ideal conceptual realm of logical thought. A straight line is an oxymoron in the exact same sense as a round square. If a line is perfectly straight, then it can’t also be perfectly straight. Let me show you why…
There are many ways to express this probably better than what I am going to use. But let’s use an analogy of stacking magnets. Let’s stack them with their polarity reversed so that each hovers above another. And we want to make it so that without added support, they stay stacked. Of course their vertical alignment must be pretty perfect and absolutely no interference can be allowed, else they will fall. So let’s see just how perfectly aligned they would have to be so that we know what tolerance might be allowed.
If we were to have magnets that somehow allowed for 1 degree off vertical alignment without it falling, how many could we stack without having them fall? You might think an infinite amount, but that wouldn’t be right. As each magnet stacks upon the last, that 1 degree gets smaller. With merely two magnets, you have a tolerance of 1 degree, but with another magnet on top of that one, you only have 1/2 degree of tolerance for each, or 1 degree total. And if you add another, you would only have 1/3 degree for each for a total of 1. The formula becomes;
Max Tolerance = 1 / (n-1)
So if I were creating a universe out of such magnets, I would need to be able to stack an infinite number of them and I would be allowed a tolerance of;
Max Tolerance = 1 / (infA - 1) = 0+
That is almost exactly 1 infinitesimal degree of error for each magnet. Is that impossible? Not really. Almost, but not quite impossible. The all powerful God creator could do that much. But there is a problem in that we allowed for 1 degree of error to begin with. We are required to have absolute balance, not merely “good enough”.
So for our perfectly balanced case, we cannot allow even one stacked magnet to exceed absolute zero alignment error. So where does that leave us for the entire stack?
Max Tolerance = 0 / (n-1)
What is zero divided by 2? In mathematics when we run across that we accept that it is merely equal to 0, “zero divided by anything is zero”. But logically speaking, that doesn’t really make any sense. How can you divide zero by anything? How can you get 1/2 of nothing at all? How can you get less than none at all? You can’t.
With merely 2 magnets, we might be able to arrange absolute perfect alignment. But with any more than 2, our maximum error in alignment can’t be allowed to get up to as high as absolute zero, not to mention an infinite number of them stacked.
What that means is that the level of perfection is required to be beyond absolute perfect. And that is logically impossible. Thus such a perfect balance of forces could never exist in any universe, including even a mathematically ideal universe wherein nothing existed but those magnets and some gravity force pulling on them. They absolutely must fall even if God Himself placed them as perfectly as God could.
But it gets even deeper.
From where did those “forces” come?
Let’s say that you were God and you decided to create a straight line. By definition a straight line has an infinite number of infinitesimal lengths that add up to its whole length. The effort to create that straight line is actually the exact same problem as we just thought about, an issue of accuracy.
Every infinitesimal point along the line must be in absolute perfect alignment. What degree of accuracy is allowed for merely the first? Absolute zero of course. And the next? Even less than absolute zero. You couldn’t do it even if you were God Himself and you still have an infinite number more to go, each making the tolerance even less… less than absolute zero.
If you look in Wiki and throughout the world of geometrists, you will see it said that the only symmetric shape with which you can fill space is the cube. But really? If you can’t even make a straight line, how are you going to make a cube? And if you don’t have a straight line, what do you have?
If you were to try to make any kind of curve, you would have the exact same problem. It couldn’t exist even in an ideal realm, much less in a changing physical realm. It can’t be straight and it can’t be curved. What is left?
Realize that every single formula that physics has ever derived is a logical oxymoron, not merely for the universe, but for logic itself. A math formula can only ever be an imagined approximation of reality. And that is according to the math itself, not measurement errors. Again, I am not talking about tiny disruptions that weren’t noticed or too small to measure or measurement errors. Even in an ideal universe with nothing but the items being discussed in physics, every formula they have ever created regarding any behavior, potential, or shape, can only ever be an approximation.
So now we have two questions; A) Where did those “forces” come from? B) What does a “straight line” even mean???
And for that, let’s go back to our magnets.
What if when aligning the magnets, instead of having them still, we were to vibrate them constantly? What is the probability that both would be out of alignment by their maximum amount at the same moment? Actually, zero. And even if they were, it takes time for the effect of one being out of line to get to the other in order to affect it. We just improved our alignment tolerance requirement merely by having the magnets vibrate. But did it become absolute zero? No.
But what if we were to not merely vibrate them, but accelerate and decelerate their vibration, change the changing? And better change even that too, change the changing of the changing and the changing of that, ad infinitum? With each changing of the changing, we improve on our alignment requirement.
So if we began with an absolutely perfect average alignment that was vibrating and then added another absolutely perfect alignment that was also vibrating and all of the vibrating was changing randomly, how would the force be able to determine which direction to make it all fall? By the time it began to fall in any one direction, it would already be headed in another.
Gyroscopes work basically that way. Literally by the time any one portion of the ring begins to fall, it is no longer in a position to fall that direction. The potential to fall is removed by the motion, by the changing. How many magnetic gyroscopes can you stack? Pretty much as many as you want.
So okay. Where is that straight line? Where is each infinitesimal point on that line? The only place they can be - in motion. For even God to create a straight line, every single point on that line has to be in motion relative to the others.
So now can you guess where those “forces”, imbalances in the situation, “changing potentials” come from?
I know you would. As for assumptions, what could be a bigger assumption than the existence of an objective world beyond subjective “appearance”?
Just “Experientialism” is fine, or “E” if you really must abbreviate it. It could just as easily be called EM as EO, but any additional word is superfluous in the case of my philosophy.
Perhaps I’ve not given it enough of an introduction, having only very recently named it - even though it’s been my philosophy all along. But Solipsism is my favoured philosophy - within the greater (and greatest) context of “Experientialism”. This superstructure can house any philosophy, even VO and RM. In my case it houses Solipsism as my favoured sub-philosophy. I identify myself as a Solipsist, perhaps even an Existentialist Solipsist. The fact that I know and openly recognise its boundaries, limits and assumptions is no skin off its bones - compared to any other sub-philosophy. Sub-philosophies have these things, and what determines one’s choice of sub-philosophy is one’s values rather than truth. This is why VO stands out, for me - but I still side with Solipsism.
If I understand correctly, you are asking what the origin is of the ultimate origin? Is this a valid question?
Given that I have extrapolated the essence of experience as fundamentally “pre-meaning”, it evades description unless one applies hindsight. And even then, hindsight would define that where there is no definition. Time gives meaning - no such “time sequence” may be applied either.
But such extrapolation is more of a thought experiment and a pointer - the “continuous becoming” that is experience merely suggests such a “pure” (but ultimately inaccessible) origin of current experience.
Your questions are intellectual reflexes, firmly embedded in your understanding of the world, and they are symptoms of assumptions that you need to see beyond in order to truly understand “Experientialism”.
I would suggest starting by questioning causation - a fundament of RM et al.
The “EO” stood for “Exerientialism Ontology” as opposed to other ontologies such as “Affectance Ontology” or “Value Ontology”. We are discussing distinctions and attributes of a variety of ontologies (understandings of reality).
That wasn’t really my question. I am asking for a definitive explanation for the difference between what is an experience vs what isn’t an experience, in EO. Or "what is the essential or required situation that is being called an ‘experience’ in EO?"
Any defined to be inexplicable component of an ontology is generally referred to as “magic” or a “god of the gaps”. And “pre-meaning” is necessarily “meaningless”.
That is true. Causation is a necessary component of RM:AO. And in case you haven’t seen it in the past, the “RM” in that abbreviation refers to a specific method for forming an ontology;
There can be any number of RM ontologies, such as RM:VO. But for it to qualify as an RM ontology, everything must be precisely defined, logically verified, and empirically testable at some stage. Of course the most fundamental constructs couldn’t be empirically testable as they generally deal with elements too physically small or too simple to isolate in the physical world. But something to note is that rationality is the objective, not necessarily “truth” (hence its name, “Rational Metaphysics” rather than “True Metaphysics”).
As far as questioning causation, I can’t really answer a question if it hasn’t been asked. Causation refers to the sequences of situations that necessarily (by definition) lead to other specific situations, the former being defined as “the cause” and the latter being “the effect”. The sequencing of cause to effect situations to others and others is referred to as “time”. To deny causation is to deny the existence of time.
I know what you meant EO to stand for.
And as I said, “O” is redundant. This is due to “Experientialism”'s relation to Existentialism. Existentialism distinguishes between existence and essence, which Ontology does not. Ontology as the study of being and/or existence is far too loose, whereas Existentialism deals primarily with existence (prior to essence).
Essence is a matter of “being” - definition, identity and meaning. “What is life?” is a question of the essence of life, its defintion, identity and meaning. “What does life mean?/What is the meaning of life?” ALL of these concepts exist - they are grounded in existence. Existence precedes being, being “exists”.
And the nature of existence is experience. Existence cannot be posited without experience, and experience always amounts to existence that can be attributed some form or other when it comes to questions of being.
“Nothingness”, as used normally, has a meaning - such as in the sentence “there is nothing there”. It means there is something being experienced, but the thing in question does not appear to present itself as part of that experience. To say “there is no thing there” can also be said when there is a lack of identification of any “thing”. This leaves open the possibility of “nothing” being an experience. And since existence/experience precedes being/identification, “nothing” can appear as any experience, pre-meaning: when nothing has yet been abstracted from it.
To say “there is no existence there” implies a complete lack of experience, but this is not possible - one cannot experience a lack of experience just as existence can’t not exist.
As I have said before, any reference to lack of experience is only an inferrence, implied by the experience of others saying there was experience that you did not have, and you believing this despite having absolutely no direct experiential proof of this. It can also be inferred by the implied constancy of concepts such as time, causation and objective reality, which would require existence to happen whilst you are unconscious, dead, or not yet born. The same lack of direct experiential proof goes for this too. Only imagination can feign to fill the gaps, which is an experience, inspired by the experience of interpretting the communications of others, or the experience of logical deduction - given the assumed legitamacy of one’s sense of reality and constancy, that usually involves the abstract conception of a world that exists “beyond” experience (which is inconsistent as I have explained many times).
So no, I do not need a second word to accompany “Experientialism” - it says everything it needs to say and nothing more.
There is no not-experience. Experience apparently “just exists” whether one likes it or not. It doesn’t appear to need a cause, nor an opposite. It is the set of everything that cannot be included in its own set. It doesn’t require meaning - it can be meaningless, though it is possible to extract meaning from it.
How about “is causation necessary?”
Seeing as all that we experience can be divided into various entities that can in turn be seen to interract with one another, and certain interractions appear more consistent than others, perhaps even following or preceding other interractions significantly consistently, is that enough to say one causes another? I see the use in thinking in this way, however the existence of any causal force is only ever implied by consistent experiences. It has no physical existence in itself. It is the experiences that “could” give it away, but don’t necessarily. Given this lack of necessity, this lack of physical existence, and perhaps even the possibility of completely different experiences with alternative sets of senses, there really is no reason why causation should be deemed necessary.
By definition, from nothing comes nothing.
A proof is the lack of alternatives.
Void of causation, you can have no patterns and no time.
Do you see patterns and experience time?
What you are experiencing can only come from causation.
Causation is empirically proven by the presence of experience.
…not to mention the prior explanation that the lack of causation (unbalanced potentials) is a logical impossibility.
By which definition?
The materialist one, sure, but if “things” cannot come from “no things” then how do we come to identify “something” where previously we experienced “no things”?
The materialist definition posits that the things were there all along, “objectively”, so “something” didn’t come from “nothing”, but I’ve adequately refuted this reversal of experiential truth enough times already. According to Experientialism, something can come from nothing.
Then experience (and thus Experientialism) is proven by the lack of non-experience.
I never said causation does not and cannot exist, I said it was not necessary.
It is possible to interpret experience as exhibiting causation, patterns and time. It is also possible to interpret experience differently (thus causation, patterns and time are not proven by your above definition of “proof”).
Crucially, causation is induced from patterns that can be abstracted from experience.
Since there is no proof of the cause itself, but only the first experience and the reliably subsequent experience, only experience is proven. Causation is not. But it is useful to treat experience as though it was (according to certain value sets).
And something I forgot to comment on from your last post:
This is why I added in the sentence that followed the one to which you were responding.
So you build your ontology by redefining everything, including logic, so as to confine it to the inexplicable “experience” and claim it to be a logical argument?
… pointlessly convenient.
The stipulation that I gave; “A proof is the lack of alternatives.”
Is merely a clarification of what it has always been, not a change in the definition of the concept.
I apologise for stepping outside of the standard/common…
It’s just Gödel.
It isn’t just “convenient”, it just is. He used logic to come to this inevitability and so did I. Experience is just as explicable as it is inexplicable - whichever you choose and to what extent/quality is up to your value set.
Well that’s lovely. I didn’t change the definition of the concept, I just used it to prove “Experientialism”.
Not that I needed this concept, since everything is undeniably an experience of some kind…
RM doesn’t allow the redefining of Logic from; A ≡ A; “what is, is what is” or “what is to be called ‘A’ is to remain called ‘A’”
into A ≡ the inexplicable experience of A; “Whatever I feel it to be at the time.”
And I am hopefully certain that VO doesn’t either.